New Window = No No ???

[Toby Inkster]

I use a tabbed browser. Target="_blank" opens a new browser instead of
a tab.

Not a very good tabbed browser by the sound of things.

 

[Uncle Pirate]

Uncle Pirate wrote:




Not a very good tabbed browser by the sound of things.

Mozilla 1.7.2. Is there a way to change that behaviour?

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein

 

[Toby Inkster]

Mozilla 1.7.2.
Precisely.

Is there a way to change that behaviour?

Use Opera.

 

[Nico Schuyt]

So my question is Why do the majority if not all of the writters,
coders, designers or whatever insist that a new window for the user
is like breaking a commandment?

For me counts:
a. Nobody (except a few specialists) knows how to open a link in a new
window
b. The majority of sites seems to open an 'external' link as _blank.
So, visitors expect that and can be confused if you don't.

If it is really so important, browsers will add an option for setting a
deault for opening new links:
a. In accordance with the coding
b. Always the active window unless user decides otherwise
c. Active window for internal links
New window for external links.

 

[David Dorward]

Mozilla 1.7.2. Is there a way to change that behaviour?

http://www.spuler.us/extensions/singlewindow.htm

 

[jake]

For me counts:
a. Nobody (except a few specialists) knows how to open a link in a new
window
b. The majority of sites seems to open an 'external' link as _blank.
So, visitors expect that and can be confused if you don't.

If it is really so important, browsers will add an option for setting a
deault for opening new links:
a. In accordance with the coding
b. Always the active window unless user decides otherwise
c. Active window for internal links
New window for external links.

Your comments about browser options puts the whole subject into
perspective. Until then, it's the author's design decision.

regards

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

Your comments about browser options puts the whole subject into
perspective. Until then, it's the author's design decision [to ****
with visitors' preferences].

Yes, and it's the users' decision to leave your site, never buy its
products, and tell all of your clients what a dumbass you are.

 

[jake]

[snip poster's child-like attempt to modify my comments]

Yes, and it's the users' decision to leave your site, never buy its
products, and tell all of your clients what a dumbass you are.

You really do live in a world of your own, don't you?

Still, next time you're thinking of going on a vacation, try booking a
week or two in The Real World -- you'll find it quite instructional.

Regards.

 

[Nico Schuyt]

Design decisions should be based on what's expected/normal/logical etc
by/for the visitor

[to **** with visitors' preferences].

An average visitor has no preferences. He accepts browser and sites as is
and expects a certain behaviour

Yes, and it's the users' decision to leave your site, never buy its
products, and tell all of your clients what a dumbass you are.

If such an average visitor *expects* a new window and closes the window in
order to return to the original site he's not pleased either

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

snip poster's child-like attempt to modify my comments

Because giving your post context by explaining what you were saying is
"child-like". Learn the meaning of brackets in quoted text.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

If such an average visitor *expects* a new window and closes the window in
order to return to the original site he's not pleased either

Then that user needs to learn how the Web works.

 

[Richard Rundle]

Design decisions should be based on what's expected/normal/logical etc
by/for the visitor

[to **** with visitors' preferences].

An average visitor has no preferences. He accepts browser and sites as is
and expects a certain behaviour

Yes, and it's the users' decision to leave your site, never buy its
products, and tell all of your clients what a dumbass you are.

If such an average visitor *expects* a new window and closes the window in
order to return to the original site he's not pleased either

--

IF, and that's a very important little word. In my experience, users DON'T
expect a new window when they click on a link, either internal or external.
Most of the time average users don't look at the address box to see whether
they are on the same site or a different one anyway. Keep links opening in
the same window as the default. If YOU want a link to open in a new window,
you probably know how to do this anyway. If you don't think users have the
nouse to do this, put a little primer next to the link.

 

[Nico Schuyt]

"Nico Schuyt" wrote

Leif K-Brooks wrote:

[to **** with visitors' preferences].

An average visitor has no preferences. He accepts browser and sites
as is and expects a certain behaviour

Yes, and it's the users' decision to leave your site, never buy its
products, and tell all of your clients what a dumbass you are.

If such an average visitor *expects* a new window and closes the
window in order to return to the original site he's not pleased
either

IF, and that's a very important little word.

*If* indeed. Like I said in my first posting "The majority of sites *seems*
to open an 'external' link as _blank".
That's based on my (very limited) experience. Perhaps you have eliable
statistical data.

In my experience, users
DON'T expect a new window when they click on a link, either internal
or external.

Expectations are triggered by experiences. If I cross a railway, I expect a
train. That's not the same that I *want* a train to pass.

Most of the time average users don't look at the address
box to see whether they are on the same site or a different one
anyway. Keep links opening in the same window as the default.
If YOU
want a link to open in a new window, you probably know how to do this
anyway. If you don't think users have the nouse to do this, put a
little primer next to the link.

I doubt very much that such instructions are effective.

 

[Nico Schuyt]

Then that user needs to learn how the Web works.

I agree but perhaps some form of standardisation, preferably in the default
settings in browsers, is more effective.

 

[Karl Core]

For me counts:
a. Nobody (except a few specialists) knows how to open a link in a new
window
b. The majority of sites seems to open an 'external' link as _blank.
So, visitors expect that and can be confused if you don't.

Do you have formal experience observing whether users "expect" external
links in a new window?

 

[Nico Schuyt]

"Nico Schuyt" wrote

Do you have formal experience observing whether users "expect"
external links in a new window?

I wonder if that "formal experience" is relevant. If I cross a railway 10
times a day and in an average of 8 times a train passes, I *expect* a train
and I stop before crossing. If one day there are 10 trains and the other
none, I might pass without paying attention (with all the risks).
Three solutions:
a. Standardisation in time-table (good)
b. Place an automatic barrier (better)
c. a+b (best)
IMO the discussion is not about good or bad, it's about standardisation.
Without formal standardisation the standard is dictated by practice.
Probably it's not really a problem, otherwise browsers had offered a
solution already.

BTW about the http://karlcore.com/articles/article.php?id=25 , can you
provide some additional figures about the number of persons observed, the
selection criteria etc?

 

[Dan]

Do you have formal experience observing whether users "expect" external
links in a new window?

Do users typically even know, or care, which links are "external" vs.
"internal"? That's a distinction more of interest to the site developer
than the end user in most cases.

 

[Karl Core]

I wonder if that "formal experience" is relevant. If I cross a railway 10
times a day and in an average of 8 times a train passes, I *expect* a
train
and I stop before crossing. If one day there are 10 trains and the other
none, I might pass without paying attention (with all the risks).
Three solutions:
a. Standardisation in time-table (good)
b. Place an automatic barrier (better)
c. a+b (best)
IMO the discussion is not about good or bad, it's about standardisation.
Without formal standardisation the standard is dictated by practice.
Probably it's not really a problem, otherwise browsers had offered a
solution already.

I concede that there are some cases where standard practice is good, even
when the idea is bad.
The use of blue, underlined text for links is the stupidest idea Tim BL et
al ever had in the early days. Blue text is hard on the eyes.
However, now close to 15 years into the WWW, people expect links to *at
least* be underlined and recognize blue text as links.

I don't view opening new sites in new windows as a "standard practice".
However, as my article states, the biggest issue isn't the new window but
rather the fact that the user doesn't notice it.

BTW about the http://karlcore.com/articles/article.php?id=25 , can you
provide some additional figures about the number of persons observed, the
selection criteria etc?

I don't cite such numbers because in all cases, the goal of the tests were
not to see their reactions to new windows. The observations I cite were made
as an aside to what was being tested.
That said, total numbers are now pushing 100 or so. Selection criteria were
people who were deemed to have fit a defined user persona for the site being
tested. I can't give too many details, as I would be violating the contracts
with our clients. Suffice it to say that the participants ranged from
general audiences to professionals in the domain covered on the site (i.e. a
site about building products may have architects and building contractors as
the test participants).

 

[Karl Core]

Do users typically even know, or care, which links are "external" vs.
"internal"? That's a distinction more of interest to the site developer
than the end user in most cases.

They do not typically know. That is the one valid argument for opening new
windows. I have seen participants go over to a new site (in the same window)
and not know where they are or how to get back. But I'd say that knowing
they're on a new site is a 50/50 chance, and opening a new full-sized window
is sure to exacerbate the problem because of the broken 'back' button.

We've chosen the practice of creating "speedbump" pages, to which we send
all external links. It tells the user that they're leaving and that the
organization is not responsible for the content on the new site. They're
given a "Continue" button which sends the user to the new site and a
"Cancel" button which takes them to the referring page.

 

[Nico Schuyt]

I don't cite such numbers because in all cases, the goal of the tests
were not to see their reactions to new windows. The observations I
cite were made as an aside to what was being tested.
That said, total numbers are now pushing 100 or so. Selection
criteria were people who were deemed to have fit a defined user
persona for the site being tested. I can't give too many details, as
I would be violating the contracts with our clients. Suffice it to
say that the participants ranged from general audiences to
professionals in the domain covered on the site (i.e. a site about
building products may have architects and building contractors as the
test participants).

OK, thanks for the information. And probably your conclusions are valid:
When my wife has spent an hour or two searching the web, she always ends up
with about 50 open ie-windows